Talk:Laura Whitehorn

terrorist or activist?
If Ted Kaczynski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski is described as a domestic terrorist for bombings shouldn't Laura Whitehorn also be described as a domestic terrorist for her bombing(s)? --DevilTrombone (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ted was convicted of illegally transporting, mailing, and using bombs, and three counts of murder. Laura was convicted of conspiring and damaging government buildings. I believe based on these precise convictions that Ted is somewhat more of a terrorist. We must remember in this discussion what the convictions were, as we cannot exceed them, regardless of what else we know in the details of each crime. Mcfnord (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See MOS:TERRORIST. FDW777 (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Bearian (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The user I was helping (a student) had created the article in Word and then copied and pasted it into Wikipedia. Wikipedia didn't recognize the ref tags from Word, which is why only a part of the article showed. If the person requesting deletion had looked at the edit page, he would have seen the entire page. All the ref tags were removed and the text cleaned up and the user will be going in again to put in the citations so there is a complete article here now rather than a stub, and so should not be deleted. I think we should follow the guidelines of the fourth pillar - "assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming." The person creating this article is a new user so should be welcomed rather than deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubothell1 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 November 2007
 * Don't worry, this article is no longer tagged for deletion. If you like, you can review our speedy deletion criteria at WP:CSD.  When it was tagged, it fell under criteria A1, which says that articles that are very short and have little or no context can be deleted immediately.  It's just a mechanism that we use to keep the encyclopedia as clean as possible.  As it no longer qualifies, I declined the speedy deletion.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to remove the tag that suggests that this article uses no references? It no longer seems applicable. --Historytrain (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree, can the deletion tag be removed from the article, the user's article is well sourced? The article seems well written and a lot of care was put into assembling and citing it.Tjcjaj (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This article should no longer be listed for deletion. It is well sourced and complete for what the author could reserch. Please remove it from this category. Lalalajane (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The article's first reference to PFOC would be clearer for readers if accompanied by the full name ["Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC)"], and then subsequent references could be by the abbreviation only. --Historytrain (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think that the author of this article did a great job. It seems pretty apparent that a lot of research and time went into its creation. I also believe it's well written and the tag for deletion should be removed. masona345 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please contribute your views of this article to the deletion discussion that the AfD tag links to. Articles_for_deletion/Laura_Whitehorn. The tag will be removed when the discussion is complete and a decision has been made by an administrator. Significant improvements in the article since its original tagging generally lead to the article being kept. Avruch Talk 19:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tone of this article
I am writing to ask your help to correct the tone of my article. Can anyone suggest a particular section(s) that may have a POV bias, and indicate your recommendations accordingly? Thank you in advance.Ossu (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Step One--using only reliable sources. Her autobiographic statements are not acceptable sources, except for her own feelings at the time. other WP articles are not acceptable sources. Web postings are not acceptable sources. Combine the references and the notes according to WP:CITE
 * Step Two: using neutral descriptors for political movements, not code words such as "progressive" or "in solidarity with"

The we can see what remains to be done. DGG (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly what you mean by "web postings", but it seems that it should be clarified that web-based content is fine, but not things like blogs or forums. Murderbike (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to clean as much up as I could in a short amount of time, though the cites are still a mess. Hopefully it's not in too bad of shape now. Murderbike (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DGG – this article glosses over the crimes that make her notable and deserving of an article. As an example, the article states "She was charged with 'conspiracy to oppose, protest and change the policies and practices of the United States government in domestic and international matters by violence and illegal means.'" Those may or may not be the actual charges, but the statement is unconvincing because the quote is cited to page 51 of her autobiography. By contrast, The New York Times, a reliable source, leads off its article Radical Gets 20-Year Term in 1983 Bombing of U.S. Capitol with "A left-wing radical received a 20-year sentence Thursday for bombing the Capitol and conspiring to set off seven other explosions that a prosecutor called acts of terrorism." And later, "The two women and five other members of a group describing itself as a 'Communist politico-military organization' were charged in May with setting off bombs at the Capitol, at three military installations in the Washington area and at four sites in New York City from 1983 to 1985." These acts certainly deserve more wiki-ink than all her good works in prison and the causes she's involved in now. As to "web-based content" being fine, anybody with a credit card can set up a web site; that doesn't rise to the level of a WP:RS. --CliffC (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Re"web-based content". What I was trying to say/clarify, was that DGG's comment sounded to me like anything from the web is unacceptable, which is completely untrue. I was just trying to clarify that web-based content isn't inherently unacceptable. There are reliable sources on the internet. Including the New York Times, as you've quoted from. Murderbike (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to talk more about the explosion and the major details but overall the paper looks good —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blund4 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In describing the documentary, The Weather Underground, you assert that Kathleen Cleaver and Todd Gitlin were members of WUO. Cleaver was a member of the Black Panther Party as announced in the documentary (see also Wiki Page under Kathleen Neal Cleaver) and Todd Gitlin was a member of SDS, in addition to being one of the Weatherman's most vocal critics. It might be helpful to sculpt a few sentences to signal that the documentary was crafted to include diverse voices of collaborators and detractors of the WUO. The citation that is lacking for the entry is: The Weather Underground. Dirs. Sam Green and Bill Siegel. The Free History Project, 2002. (Willowmina (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

"potential for endangering lives"
Ok, so to me, this statement is terribly POV. In ANY situation, there is the "potential" for nearly ANYTHING happening. That doesn't make it relevant. Anytime I drive down the road, there's "potential" for "endangering lives", but a statement about driving cars wouldn't need to point this out. It's too open-ended. Thoughts? I think that if wording like this is to be used, a direct quote is necessary, and the term "asserted" is necessary, as the way it is worded now, makes it seem like an obvious/undisputable fact. Murderbike 22:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(OSSU) While I agree with your point about driving down the road and the potential for endangering lives, I don't think you can compare that with planting a bomb in a building and the potential it does indeed have for endangering lives in the after math. I can not provide a direct quote to this point from a reliable source, yet I think it is an important point to make. Without it, allowing Whitehorn's quote about taking great care to insure no one would be hurt, including the janitorial staff, to stand alone, would seem terribly POV. 66.82.9.109 04:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)OSSU
 * I'm definitely not saying that Whitehorn's statement shouldn't be balanced. However, one thing that is not allowed in wikipedia articles is original research. I cannot counter her opinion with my opinion, we must have a reliable source that counters her opinion, and have it cited. And really, because of the nature of the opinions, I would really prefer it be a direct quote. Murderbike 04:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm the editor who made the recent changes that likely drew your attention to this section. Some comments:
 * When using a driving-a-car : planting-a-bomb analogy, "driving through the wall of an office building" would be more apt than "driving down the road" when considering whether the endangerment of lives is an obvious/indisputable fact.
 * I don't read the statement as limiting the concern to the aftermath. Unless the Weathermen formed a cordon around the building after planting each bomb, all the "great care" in the world could not absolutely ensure no one was present and subject to injury.
 * Where the text now says "critics have pointed out", would we need a quote from a critic of Whitehorn's bombings specifically, or just a critic of the potential dangers in bombing buildings in general? Sorry if I sound sarcastic, but it's been a long day and I don't think such discussions are a good use of anyone's time.
 * --CliffC 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in my opinion, the statement isn't a neutral one, despite what others may thing. So, it seems like a good idea to attribute it to someone, to avoid original research issues. As to your first point, I've been hit by four cars in my life, none of which were driving through walls, all of which were driving down roads, so excuse me if I laugh at the dispute. The issue here is that Laura Whitehorn made a statement about intent, it's quoted, and cited. So any countering argument should be given the same care, quoting, and citation. It is not for wikipedia editors to contradict ones statements, no matter what you think about the wrongness or rightness of the statement. Murderbike 21:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, somewhere around 40,000 people die every year in the US because of cars, how many of those do you think are from cars driving through buildings? Murderbike 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So, if I could bring the focus back to this article and away from cars and buildings... I am glad that Murderbike agrees that Whitehorn's statement should be balanced, however, I am at a loss how I can do this. I did not realize that without a realiable source and cited accordingly, a comment such as "critics have pointed out..." is considered original research. What would you recommend, short of finding a reliable source? Ossu 22:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that finding a reliable source is an impossibility? I mean, you say "critics have pointed out...", who are these critics (besides CliffC and yourself of course)?Murderbike 22:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think how the article is written, given the author has cited the article very well, "potential for endangering lives" works well and most critics would use this statement when describing the situation. I think the author did a great job using cited material and it is obvious a lot of research went into this article. Jjs8 04:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)jjs8
 * The problem here is not the rest of the article, or whether or not your classmate did a good job. The problem is one specific statement, and no matter how well sourced the rest of the article is, the problem needs to be fixed. If you think that "most critics" would use this statement, find somewhere to cite it from. It's not that big of a deal. If you can't cite it, it can't be here. Murderbike 22:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Getting that cite is on my mental to-do list, I'm hoping to stumble upon one, sometimes that's easier than a flat-out search.
 * Refs looking good! --CliffC 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Goals, not charges
The article states, citing Whitehorn's 2003 article "Fighting to Get Them Out", "Whitehorn became one of the defendants in the Resistance Conspiracy Case, and was charged with “conspiracy to oppose, protest and change the policies and practices of the United States government in domestic and international matters by violence and illegal means.”" But those were not the charges, that quote is based on a statement in the indictment of the group's goals; and that's why they appear rather wishy-washy as legal charges. If that's what Whitehorn's article actually says, as opposed to there simply being a misreading of it somewhere along the line, her statement is false. For the record, The New York Times says "The 23-page indictment said the goal of the conspiracy was "to influence, change and protest policies and practices of the United States Government concerning various international and domestic matters through the use of violent and illegal means."" (slightly different wording). I'll add the actual charges to the paragraph and identify the corrected goals as goals. --CliffC 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Early Life
Should the article mention that she's Jewish? 204.111.131.82 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)